If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Oh, no arguments that the assassins and templars get more nuance than they've had up until now. It does a good job with one character at least, in presenting the templars in something approaching a sympathetic light.

Unfortunately almost everybody said character chums around with is distinctly moustache twirling and furniture chewing in their classic villain ham modes, which sort of discredits their arguments a bit.

I just don't think Boston or New York are as memorable to climb around in. There's no "wow I made it to the top of X, and it was amazing". AC1 had that great tower to climb. I did like what they did with the Templars for the most part, especially the stab speeches, some of them were well done. It was a nice step back to AC1, where I actually enjoyed grey area. I agree with the moustache twirling too, I found a bit too much of "Well, Connor you think you're so GOOD don't you? We're just as good! *slits the throat of three men*

I agree that the plot was by far the least black/white since AC1. Sure, that doesn't say much, considering that none of the Ezio villains had even a hint of a sympathetic stroke, but I actually did like the plot and characters in AC3. Except Connor of course. Kanhenthogon(?) was sort of a drag as well. But (almost) everyone seemed convinced that they were fighting the good fight and that they were just doing what needed to be done.

The environments were extremely uninspiring IMO. Very samey, quite dull. The wilderness was kind of a drag, especially without a horse, and even more so during winter. Hunting for non-predators made me feel like a horrible person. The environments have previously been a key selling point for me, so that's a big remark on the negative side. Then again, I've never been very interested in American history.

The control scheme, however, is by far the best in the series. I've always played the games with M+KB, but have recognized some of the issues with it. I had no issues at all in AC3. It works like a charm.

I don't recall any particularly annoying gameplay elements, such as the TD or bombs from Revelations. What's added to the core game mechanics is either fun/interesting or easily ignored.

All-in-all, I sort of liked the game, but not as much as the above may imply. I did another playthrough a few weeks ago and stopped half way through, mainly because of Connor. I think that the main legacy of the game for me will be that the improved controls have made the previous iterations feel rigid and rough. That's not good.

I also liked AC3. It has some good idea and not everything works as it should (like the too long prologue with Haythem and the horrible crafting/trading interface), but overall I think it's quite a good game.

Interesting comments about Assassin's Creed III. I was under the impression that the general reaction to it had been one of relative disappointment, but it seems that even though it might not have reached the heights hoped for, it's still a decent game. And besides, it's not as if there's a giant number of non-strategy games set in the late 18th century games with which to scratch that particular itch!

I watched a YouTube video of someone doing the Boston Tea Party mission, which unfortunately was one giant massacre of British soldiers, but I suppose that's the only game-play that works in this genre.

"He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~ Luke 4:18

I watched a YouTube video of someone doing the Boston Tea Party mission, which unfortunately was one giant massacre of British soldiers, but I suppose that's the only game-play that works in this genre.

The game tends to stay pro-American, but tries to make it out as a choice of convenience, rather than ideology (although ideology appears now and then). There are some rather silly "flag waving American" moments. For example, the sequences where Connor replaces the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes are a bit cheesy, and are also among the few unskippable cut-scenes in the game. The story primarily has you killing Brits, but you can discriminate freely while free roaming.

EDIT: As for characters, the game doesn't really do the British=evil, American=good distinction, instead pointing out that no one is without faults. There are no saints in the game.

Drox has a demo so you can try it yourself - as does Zigfrak I think - I love em both

Thx, mate! I became aware of the fact that a demo exists shortly after I posted here.

Zigfrak, then: I tend to agree in regard to the soundtrack and the responsive controls. The visuals are simple and yet eye-pleasing enough. What I couldn't evaluate from what I've played so far: How much "game" is in there? Does combat get more interesting than "point crosshair in vague direction of enemy and hold down space bar"? Is there enough enemy variety?

From what I played it seemed little more than a framework (not a bad one, mind you) but without an actual "game"?

The game tends to stay pro-American, but tries to make it out as a choice of convenience, rather than ideology (although ideology appears now and then). There are some rather silly "flag waving American" moments.

I don't really mind that. I've seen enough films and games to find that particular brand of American chauvinism laughable rather than annoying or even offensive, but I was more worried that the people at Ubisoft haven't been able to expand the ways you interact with the world. In the end it still comes down to violence, I guess, and plenty of it. But anyway, I've put AC3 on my Steam Wishlist. Hopefully the summer sale will see a better discount than €38 for the full game!

"He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~ Luke 4:18

The game tends to stay pro-American, but tries to make it out as a choice of convenience, rather than ideology (although ideology appears now and then). There are some rather silly "flag waving American" moments. For example, the sequences where Connor replaces the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes are a bit cheesy, and are also among the few unskippable cut-scenes in the game. The story primarily has you killing Brits, but you can discriminate freely while free roaming.

EDIT: As for characters, the game doesn't really do the British=evil, American=good distinction, instead pointing out that no one is without faults. There are no saints in the game.

I would actually disagree on it being "pro-American". It is no more Pro-American than AC2 was Pro Medici or AC1 was Pro-Muslim. You just happen to be working with Americans. In fact, so are the Templars.

Also, if you talk to Sean Hastings (the fun mission control guy) he'll even give you the pro-British viewpoint on the American Revolution, which is a nice touch.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

I would actually disagree on it being "pro-American". It is no more Pro-American than AC2 was Pro Medici or AC1 was Pro-Muslim. You just happen to be working with Americans. In fact, so are the Templars.

Also, if you talk to Sean Hastings (the fun mission control guy) he'll even give you the pro-British viewpoint on the American Revolution, which is a nice touch.

I would actually maintain my view that the game is pro-American. For example, Connor says on numerous occasions that "The people deserve to be free!" or something in that vein. That's fine and dandy; it's compatible with the Assassins' ideology as well as that of the modern world. It is also pro-American. Connor's inconsistent attitude towards the rebellion was a bit weird, though. He's equal parts "I don't care about this shit" and "Freedom for everyone, y'all!". But as I said, the game doesn't illustrate America as the holy land, but shows both positive and negative sides. Take the slave situation for example. However, more often than not, when someone has been wronged, the British are the guilty party. Just look at Connor's little retinue: "The British took my home", "The British took our crops", "The British tax too harshly", "I 'ate ze British, hein!", etc.

Most importantly though, while the Americans are generally portrayed as fallible men fighting for a good cause, the British are just negatively portrayed. There's very little information on the British perspective. The British are just a faceless enemy of freedom.

Also ugh, I can't say I'm very fond of Shaun's input. It may be the Swedish translation (which is a nice touch), but all his "comedic" remarks just fall flat IMO. And they're often so overly partial that they're more of an annoyance than a counterweight. There is certainly (seemingly) objective information, though, such as the discussions about loyalists and patriots among the American population. However, his pro-British viewpoint is more often of the "We should have won because... Because!" type than providing justification for the British actions and motivations. Of course, that didn't stop me from devouring every piece of information I came across, but it did reduce my enjoyment of it.

I believe that the developers tried to be objective, but ultimately didn't quite succeed.

I would actually maintain my view that the game is pro-American. For example, Connor says on numerous occasions that "The people deserve to be free!" or something in that vein. That's fine and dandy; it's compatible with the Assassins' ideology as well as that of the modern world. It is also pro-American.

The Assassins have been saying that since 1. You might as well argue that AC1 was Pro-American if you are gonna play that card :p

Connor's inconsistent attitude towards the rebellion was a bit weird, though. He's equal parts "I don't care about this shit" and "Freedom for everyone, y'all!". But as I said, the game doesn't illustrate America as the holy land, but shows both positive and negative sides. Take the slave situation for example. However, more often than not, when someone has been wronged, the British are the guilty party. Just look at Connor's little retinue: "The British took my home", "The British took our crops", "The British tax too harshly", "I 'ate ze British, hein!", etc.

Well, that is becuase Connor originally joined the side of the Americans for reasons and it would be pretty awkward to have him being a turncoat non-stop. And if someone has been wronged by Americans, I doubt they would get along with a bunch of anti-British folk.

Most importantly though, while the Americans are generally portrayed as fallible men fighting for a good cause, the British are just negatively portrayed. There's very little information on the British perspective. The British are just a faceless enemy of freedom.

That is because you never really work with the British. It isn't that the British are a "faceless enemy of freedom". They are just a faceless enemy period. Again, how are we supposed to get the British perspective? Is Connor supposed to join up with them halfway through?

The AC games have mostly been good about playing up the "Giant war between two small groups". The papacy weren't evil in AC2, it was the Templars and the Borgias (Templars). The random footsoldier didn't give a rat's ass, he just knew that Ezio was a mass murderer. Same here

Also ugh, I can't say I'm very fond of Shaun's input. It may be the Swedish translation (which is a nice touch), but all his "comedic" remarks just fall flat IMO. And they're often so overly partial that they're more of an annoyance than a counterweight. There is certainly (seemingly) objective information, though, such as the discussions about loyalists and patriots among the American population. However, his pro-British viewpoint is more often of the "We should have won because... Because!" type than providing justification for the British actions and motivations. Of course, that didn't stop me from devouring every piece of information I came across, but it did reduce my enjoyment of it.

Actually, there was a pretty good conversation about the start of the war and how the British were (probably) right for wanting some money and the Americans basically said "Piss off you limey bastards".

I believe that the developers tried to be objective, but ultimately didn't quite succeed.

I think there were a few awkward points on both sides, but overall it maintained a largely neutral stance. The AC games aren't history textbooks. They handle war and the like in the context of "There was a war, it was a smokescreen for the battles between the Templars and the Assassins. The Assassins were on side X, the templar were on Side Y". Although, in this case, both were on side X which was pretty interesting.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

The Assassins have been saying that since 1. You might as well argue that AC1 was Pro-American if you are gonna play that card :p

Sure, if AC1 portrayed America in the Holy Land, fighting the good fight, I probably would. That would be a whole new level of weird, though. As it is, AC1 was probably the most successfully unbiased game in the series. The thing is, I'm not saying freedom=America; partly because it isn't relevant in the context and partly because it isn't true. I'm saying that siding with the patriots, declaring their cause just, and not providing more than a few remarks about the British perspective, whilst portraying heaps of atrocities by the Brits, is a bit one-sided.

Well, that is becuase Connor originally joined the side of the Americans for reasons and it would be pretty awkward to have him being a turncoat non-stop. And if someone has been wronged by Americans, I doubt they would get along with a bunch of anti-British folk.

Fair enough, but Connor's group was just an example. I think they mentioned that about 40 % of the American population was loyalist. Is there any instance where they are shown to suffer? I'm hardly an expert on the revolution, but I suspect the war spilled over on both sides. Even though Connor fights with the blue coats, I don't see any reason for him to ignore the suffering of innocent loyalist civilians or at least acknowledge their existence.

That is because you never really work with the British. It isn't that the British are a "faceless enemy of freedom". They are just a faceless enemy period. Again, how are we supposed to get the British perspective? Is Connor supposed to join up with them halfway through?

How about showing some humanity in any of them? Or allow for conversations with loyalist civilians? In the end, that's up to the writers. If they don't want a partial story, there are plenty of ways to introduce perspective.

The AC games have mostly been good about playing up the "Giant war between two small groups". The papacy weren't evil in AC2, it was the Templars and the Borgias (Templars). The random footsoldier didn't give a rat's ass, he just knew that Ezio was a mass murderer. Same here

This, I can agree with. Somewhat. However, while the Templars engineered some of the events starting the rebellion, British policy and British cruelty were the main causes. The Templars set off the spark, but the British provided the kindling. I'm sure this is historically correct (not the Templar part), but outside of a few information boxes, no justification is provided. AssBro doesn't really distinguish between the Papacy and the Templars. AC3 portrays the British as their own entity, influenced by the Templars, but cruel in its own right.

Actually, there was a pretty good conversation about the start of the war and how the British were (probably) right for wanting some money and the Americans basically said "Piss off you limey bastards".

Yes, Shaun had his moments. However, I have a feeling that most people don't read the information boxes. Was any justification for the British shown in-game?

I think there were a few awkward points on both sides, but overall it maintained a largely neutral stance. The AC games aren't history textbooks. They handle war and the like in the context of "There was a war, it was a smokescreen for the battles between the Templars and the Assassins. The Assassins were on side X, the templar were on Side Y". Although, in this case, both were on side X which was pretty interesting.

The Templars weren't on either side, they played the sides against each other to create a nation dominated by them and their beliefs. The good guys believed in America, while the bad guys wanted an America that wasn't "American".

But once again, I'm not saying that the game is American propaganda. The game presents neither side as perfect, it just features a pretty one-sided portrayal of the British. I'm certainly no anti-American myself, but I did react on some things.